Hello, new guy here. I've been following this forum for awhile now and decided to join. I enjoy learning why people believe what they do. More from a psychological as well as a cultural viewpoint I suppose. Just to put it out there, I have no beliefs in deity's God/Gods or the supernatural. I'm Just here to observe and occasionally join conversaions and ask questions.

Question: When there is no way a question can be answered through a naturalistic means what alternative is there? Deductive logic says that when all is eliminated whatever is left must be the answer. And when a totally natural answer will not work then the supernatural is all that is left. Of course if you have another alternative I'm all ears.

Well to answer your question Ike, When one doesnt have an answer to a question regarding the "natural world" I do not feel that that the logical default answer to that question is a "supernatural" one. The position that "God/Gods, Ghosts" are the explanation for some unknown phenomenon and that the supernatural explains some unanswered questions about the natural world is ludacris in my own opinion. I think the name for that is" God of the gaps". I dont know the answer to that so insert "God" here.

Hello, new guy here. I've been following this forum for awhile now and decided to join. I enjoy learning why people believe what they do. More from a psychological as well as a cultural viewpoint I suppose. Just to put it out there, I have no beliefs in deity's God/Gods or the supernatural. I'm Just here to observe and occasionally join conversaions and ask questions.

Well to answer your question Ike, When one doesnt have an answer to a question regarding the "natural world" I do not feel that that the logical default answer to that question is a "supernatural" one. The position that "God/Gods, Ghosts" are the explanation for some unknown phenomenon and that the supernatural explains some unanswered questions about the natural world is ludacris in my own opinion. I think the name for that is" God of the gaps". I dont know the answer to that so insert "God" here.

We don't believe in God because we simply don't know of other alternatives. We believe in God because there are good reasons to believe that God exists. When we approach it by looking at the evidence and following where it leads, then it is not an argument from ignorance.

Fair enough Spectre, I personally have never seen any evidence or any good reasons to believe in God and the whole concept is strange to me. I am however intererested in the mindset and reasoning of people as to why they believe in whatever God or supernatural entity that they do. It's quite interesting to me.

Well to answer your question Ike, When one doesnt have an answer to a question regarding the "natural world" I do not feel that that the logical default answer to that question is a "supernatural" one. The position that "God/Gods, Ghosts" are the explanation for some unknown phenomenon and that the supernatural explains some unanswered questions about the natural world is ludacris in my own opinion. I think the name for that is" God of the gaps". I dont know the answer to that so insert "God" here.

What about when the natural evidence points to the conclusion that a naturalistic method or phenomenon cannot possibly (logically) be the cause of the natural evidence you observe.

My example here are the biochemical pathways in a cell. This is no conceivable method that such systems could have "evolved" by a bit-by-bit naturalistic process, and in some areas it shows where there must have been an element of intelligence in order to create such systems.

The only logical conclusion is an intelligent agent, and since this is talking about the creation of life itself it must be supernatural

Furthermore there are also philosophical evidences and evidence of logic as well as the theological evidences. I gave an example of natural evidence since that is generally the only thing the atheist accepts, (sorry to use / assume a generalization)

Well to answer your question Ike, When one doesnt have an answer to a question regarding the "natural world" I do not feel that that the logical default answer to that question is a "supernatural" one. The position that "God/Gods, Ghosts" are the explanation for some unknown phenomenon and that the supernatural explains some unanswered questions about the natural world is ludacris in my own opinion. I think the name for that is" God of the gaps". I dont know the answer to that so insert "God" here.

Eliminating an answer because you prefer not to believe it is not actual science. The scientific method demands that you follow the evidence regardless of where it leads. Do you deny this? Or is the scientific method just a suggestion of rules meant to be broken whenever someone decides they don;t like where the evidence leads?

Also are your opinions the way that everyone should follow or is science and the scientific method?

I agree that the scientifIc method demands that you follow evidence where it leads Ike. However I'm not sure that the "supernatural" can be quantified or validated via the scientific method. Questions that pertain to the supernatural are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature and, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. Questions regarding the supernatural are matters of personal spirituality and faith.

I agree that the scientifIc method demands that you follow evidence where it leads Ike. However I'm not sure that the "supernatural" can be quantified or validated via the scientific method. Questions that pertain to the supernatural are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature and, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. Questions regarding the supernatural are matters of personal spirituality and faith.

Except for when science rules out the naturalistic methods, and then you are only left with the supernatural...

I agree that the scientifIc method demands that you follow evidence where it leads Ike. However I'm not sure that the "supernatural" can be quantified or validated via the scientific method. Questions that pertain to the supernatural are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature and, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. Questions regarding the supernatural are matters of personal spirituality and faith.

Well you see there you go. The main reason God or the supernatural cannot or never will be found by science is because of your way of thinking that makes sure it cannot and never will be allowed to be found. Are the naturalists so afraid of God that they cannot ever allow themselves to consider it so they make rules that allows them not to ever have to look in that direction? I find that funny.

And your claims that it's beyond the realm of science to study. If that's the case then what you are here actually doing using science contradicts that. Because if science cannot make a conclusion concerning the supernatural or God then to what end do you use it to try and discredit these things when you cannot even test for these things as you claim?

When has science ever determind a supernatural explanation Gilbo? Just because somthing is unexplained does not mean that it is supernatural,or paranormal. Because you cant imagine a natural explanation then it must be supernatural is fallicious reasoning.

Ike, What has science ever verified or validated of the supernatural?.I think what you are refering to is pseudo science which pretends to be part of the world of science but actually lacks all elements of logical, scientific determinants. Science and pseudo science are totally opposed to each other. Pseudo science is easier to create and understand than real science. Pseudo science deals with appearances whereas real science deals with repeatable and objectively observable facts.

What about when the natural evidence points to the conclusion that a naturalistic method or phenomenon cannot possibly (logically) be the cause of the natural evidence you observe.

My example here are the biochemical pathways in a cell. This is no conceivable method that such systems could have "evolved" by a bit-by-bit naturalistic process, and in some areas it shows where there must have been an element of intelligence in order to create such systems.

The only logical conclusion is an intelligent agent, and since this is talking about the creation of life itself it must be supernatural

Furthermore there are also philosophical evidences and evidence of logic as well as the theological evidences. I gave an example of natural evidence since that is generally the only thing the atheist accepts, (sorry to use / assume a generalization)

I explained it here.... Please read my posts

Many evolutionists prefer to ignore the biochemical problems of evolution...

Ike, What has science ever verified or validated of the supernatural?.I think what you are refering to is pseudo science which pretends to be part of the world of science but actually lacks all elements of logical, scientific determinants. Science and pseudo science are totally opposed to each other. Pseudo science is easier to create and understand than real science. Pseudo science deals with appearances whereas real science deals with repeatable and objectively observable facts.

LOL, so the only way to discredit the supernatural is to make fun of it? Quite lame but nice try,

I find that when atheists like yourself resort to these things it's because your science cannot back up your "opinions" on the matter. So keep it up you prove my point with every post. Make sure that your next post even pokes more fun because I know you can do better than that.

I read it Gilbo, However I fail to see how because you see that there is "no concievable method how such systems could have "evolved" the logical answer is a supernatural one. Because one doesnt know somthing doesnt mean that the answer is supernatural. Claiming that the answer is supernatural is extraordinary and that requires extraordinary proof. My take on it is that humans are subject to many unforeseen events.This can be a powerful motivator for a belief in the supernatural and God. The appeal of the God lies in the erroneous assumption that certain supernatural powers or beings can provide security in a very insecure world. So my question is Gilbo, if somthing is inconcievable to you and you conclude that the answer must be supernatural then how do you confirm and validate that conclusion via science?

I'm not trying to discredit or make fun of the supernatural. I'm asking for not only scientific evidence of the supernaural but how science can or does go about studying the supernatural? Where has the supernatural been verified within the world of science? I fail to see how and unanswered question about the natural world has a supernatural answer by default. There has to be some quantifiable and real world scientific evidence for that to be so.

I read it Gilbo, However I fail to see how because you see that there is "no concievable method how such systems could have "evolved" the logical answer is a supernatural one. Because one doesnt know somthing doesnt mean that the answer is supernatural. Claiming that the answer is supernatural is extraordinary and that requires extraordinary proof. My take on it is that humans are subject to many unforeseen events.This can be a powerful motivator for a belief in the supernatural and God. The appeal of the God lies in the erroneous assumption that certain supernatural powers or beings can provide security in a very insecure world. So my question is Gilbo, if somthing is inconcievable to you and you conclude that the answer must be supernatural then how do you confirm and validate that conclusion via science?

It isn't inconceivable to just me, it is inconceivable to science. As I said in the opening when science ITSELF refutes a natural bit by bit process. Don't try and assert scientific understanding as my own opinion.

When you have feedback loops preventing one process by the exclusion of a product of another then you have observable cases of irreducibly complex systems that literally cannot have existed partially and been built up from there. Remember in order for a system be selected for it must give a fitness advantage, hence EVERY single stage must have a fitness advantage... Yet these feedback loops mean that there is NO advantage until the system is functional as it depends on the other systems being in place for it to function at all.

This is observed and documented, hence the logical conclusion is that the system was in place in its entirety... Which of course invokes an intelligent agent. Its not hard logic, it just may be hard to swallow.... when naturalistic science debunks any attempt at a naturalistic method / cause.

Hence your question was answered by my first sentence... (hence why I asked you to read my post...)

" What about when the natural evidence points to the conclusion that a naturalistic method or phenomenon cannot possibly (logically) be the cause of the natural evidence you observe."

Ok if the logical conclusion is that an intelligent agent is behind it, then how do you test that statement? How has it been tested? How do you go about proving that? What scientific studies have done to show that a supernatural intelligent being or agent is behind the natural world? It seems that from reading the transcripts from the Dover trial, that advocates of ID had a wide open opportunity to present their case and bring the scientific evidence for ID to the table. However they failed to do that and what they presented was severly lacking as far as science goes. I am open to any valid scientific studies that present any evidence for the supernatural. So if you have any, please show me.

Ok if the logical conclusion is that an intelligent agent is behind it, then how do you test that statement? How has it been tested? How do you go about proving that? What scientific studies have done to show that a supernatural intelligent being or agent is behind the natural world? It seems that from reading the transcripts from the Dover trial, that advocates of ID had a wide open opportunity to present their case and bring the scientific evidence for ID to the table. However they failed to do that and what they presented was severly lacking as far as science goes. I am open to any valid scientific studies that present any evidence for the supernatural. So if you have any, please show me.

Its a logical conclusion.... You cannot scientifically test logic

Please test the laws of logicPlease test the laws of sciencePlease test the ability of a person to make rational choicesetc etc etc ad nauseum

Asking "how do you test the supernatural" is totally missing the point. However for the sake of argument the exclusion of a non-design process via science only leaves a designed process... Hence there is no need for "evidence of the supernatural".

However adding on from that if life was formed by a designed process then that is inferring a supernatural intelligence as we are discussing the formation of life itself and thus we would need an intelligence outside of naturalistic "life"... thus supernatural.

EDIT: also asking to test a logical conclusion would lead to an infinte regress as you would then need to ask to test the conclusion of the tests you did on the original conclusion, and then test the conclusion that was made about the test of the original conclusion.... This is what I'd like to call the Dawkins fallacy, (from the who designed the designer argument).